From owner-freebsd-gnome Tue Feb 12 11:52: 4 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org Received: from sushi.sanyusan.se (h12n2fls34o835.telia.com [213.67.31.12]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2596D37B405; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:51:51 -0800 (PST) Received: (from anders@localhost) by sushi.sanyusan.se (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g1CJBA225139; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 20:11:10 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from anders) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 20:11:09 +0100 From: Anders Andersson To: Ade Lovett Cc: Maxim Sobolev , gnome@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Naming cheme for GNOME2 ports Message-ID: <20020212191109.GC228@sushi.sanyusan.se> References: <3C695911.5BAB5E89@FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i Sender: owner-freebsd-gnome@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 12:55:42PM -0600, Ade Lovett wrote: > On 02/12/02 12:04, "Maxim Sobolev" wrote: > > > What do people think about naming scheme for the GNOME2 core > > components that already have their GNOME1 counterparts in the tree > > (i.e. gnomefoo-1.x.x vs. gnomefoo-1.99.x)? Should we just add `2' > > suffix, or something like `-devel'? Any ideas are appreciated. > > I'd go for the '2' suffix, since we're eventually going to end up with > x11/gnome2 etc. Yes, the '2' suffix seems the best approach. -- Anders Andersson UNIX, Networking and Security consultant +46 (0)705 87 53 35 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-gnome" in the body of the message